4.5 Article

Comparison of paired cerebrospinal fluid and serum cell-free mitochondrial and nuclear DNA with copy number and fragment length

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.23238

关键词

cell-free mitochondrial DNA; cell-free nuclear DNA; cerebrospinal fluid; copy number; fragment length; serum

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670712, 81101148]
  2. Zhejiang Xinmiao Talent Projects [2017R413073]
  3. Wenzhou Science and Technology Planning Project [Y20170249]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Most studies on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) were only for single body fluids; however, the differences in cfDNA distribution between two body fluids are rarely reported. Hence, in this work, we compared the differences in cfDNA distribution between cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum of patients with brain-related diseases. Methods The fragment length of cfDNA was determined by using Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. The copy numbers of cell-free mitochondrial DNA (cf-mtDNA) and cell-free nuclear DNA (cf-nDNA) were determined by using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) with three pairs of mitochondrial ND1 and nuclear GAPDH primers, respectively. Results There were short (similar to 60 bp), medium (similar to 167 bp), and long (>250 bp) cfDNA fragment length distributions totally obtained from CSF and serum using Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. The results of both qPCR and ddPCR confirmed the existence of these three cfDNA fragment ranges in CSF and serum. According to qPCR, the copy numbers of long cf-mtDNA, medium, and long cf-nDNA in CSF were significantly higher than in paired serum. In CSF, only long cf-mtDNA's copy numbers were higher than long cf-nDNA. But in serum, the copy numbers of medium and long cf-mtDNA were higher than the corresponding cf-nDNA. Conclusion The cf-nDNA and cf-mtDNA with different fragment lengths differentially distributed in the CSF and serum of patients with brain disorders, which might serve as a biomarker of human brain diseases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据